You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined._________________

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined.

This is a very good question. It's what i don't get about going RT @ #2 either.

The only thing i keep circling back to, is if Monroe's future here is uncertain and they want to make sure they have a guy with LT upside. Whether that means there's some uncertainty that they're not comfortable with in Monroe's contract future...ie. afraid he'll be asking for too much money, or want to go somewhere else for some reason. Or if they're worried he may not be as good as we think he is.

I know there was a comment somewhere earlier out of the front office discussing how two elite tackles would work...and it including some wording to the tone of, 'if Monroe proves worthy'.

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined.

This is a very good question. It's what i don't get about going RT @ #2 either.

The only thing i keep circling back to, is if Monroe's future here is uncertain and they want to make sure they have a guy with LT upside. Whether that means there's some uncertainty that they're not comfortable with in Monroe's contract future...ie. afraid he'll be asking for too much money, or want to go somewhere else for some reason. Or if they're worried he may not be as good as we think he is.

I know there was a comment somewhere earlier out of the front office discussing how two elite tackles would work...and it including some wording to the tone of, 'if Monroe proves worthy'.

Who really knows though, maybe it's all just a huge smokescreen.

Caldwell said, LT to RT, meaning drafting Fisher to play RT solely and resigning Monroe to be the LT._________________

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined.

This is a very good question. It's what i don't get about going RT @ #2 either.

The only thing i keep circling back to, is if Monroe's future here is uncertain and they want to make sure they have a guy with LT upside. Whether that means there's some uncertainty that they're not comfortable with in Monroe's contract future...ie. afraid he'll be asking for too much money, or want to go somewhere else for some reason. Or if they're worried he may not be as good as we think he is.

I know there was a comment somewhere earlier out of the front office discussing how two elite tackles would work...and it including some wording to the tone of, 'if Monroe proves worthy'.

Who really knows though, maybe it's all just a huge smokescreen.

Caldwell said, LT to RT, meaning drafting Fisher to play RT solely and resigning Monroe to be the LT.

And Caldwell specificaly said that Monroe is in our future plans._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined.

This is a very good question. It's what i don't get about going RT @ #2 either.

The only thing i keep circling back to, is if Monroe's future here is uncertain and they want to make sure they have a guy with LT upside. Whether that means there's some uncertainty that they're not comfortable with in Monroe's contract future...ie. afraid he'll be asking for too much money, or want to go somewhere else for some reason. Or if they're worried he may not be as good as we think he is.

I know there was a comment somewhere earlier out of the front office discussing how two elite tackles would work...and it including some wording to the tone of, 'if Monroe proves worthy'.

Who really knows though, maybe it's all just a huge smokescreen.

Caldwell said, LT to RT, meaning drafting Fisher to play RT solely and resigning Monroe to be the LT.

Fisher is going to be elite. If we bring him in to be a RT, he might be the best RT in the NFL come day one.

The thing I don't get it is...#2 RT will cost ~6m a year....for that get a vet thats in FA now, and get a player who put up a better PFF score this year then all of our RTs for the last 5 combined.

This is a very good question. It's what i don't get about going RT @ #2 either.

The only thing i keep circling back to, is if Monroe's future here is uncertain and they want to make sure they have a guy with LT upside. Whether that means there's some uncertainty that they're not comfortable with in Monroe's contract future...ie. afraid he'll be asking for too much money, or want to go somewhere else for some reason. Or if they're worried he may not be as good as we think he is.

I know there was a comment somewhere earlier out of the front office discussing how two elite tackles would work...and it including some wording to the tone of, 'if Monroe proves worthy'.

Who really knows though, maybe it's all just a huge smokescreen.

Caldwell said, LT to RT, meaning drafting Fisher to play RT solely and resigning Monroe to be the LT.

And Caldwell specificaly said that Monroe is in our future plans.

Indeed. But at the same time...

Found the quote i was looking for in the other thread:

Its A Sabotage wrote:

Quote:

@GeneFrenette
Caldwell says ideal scenario is if #Jaguars take OT (hint) they could have one of best tackle tandems in NFL if Monroe merits re-signing

Drops the big 'if bomb' there. Possibly reading to much into it, but to me, that reads as a...'you want elite LT money...? prove it.' sort of statement, with that hint of uncertainty.

And as you said, it's hard to wrap my mind around going OT at #2 unless there's some measure of uncertainty with the future of our LT spot...because there are potentially FA guys who would offer a significant performance upgrade at RT for similar money to a #2 pick.

If we were to draft something like Fisher/Brown/Greene, that's a draft that doesn't win games for us next year. But those players, assuming they pan out do set us for long term greatness. So basically what you're doing next year is giving Gabbert an ideal situation to succeed on an individual level and telling him "if you want your job past this season, play us out of a pick for the top QB."

If he sucks, you draft Bridgewater next year, because we will be that bad, and then plug Bridgewater in what could by then have the components to be one of the most explosive offense in the NFL, if Gabbert plays well but the team sucks still, you draft Clowney, and if Gabbert plays well and we win enough to miss out on both, that probably tells us that we're going in the right direction.

Obviously, that's assuming next year's class looks this great when it's under the microscope, but it's interesting to think about.

Conversely, drafting a great pass rusher or QB could be enough to push us up just enough to be out of contention for the best players next year.

Not necessarly the view that I have, but it's a different perspective that could be valid at some level._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

If we were to draft something like Fisher/Brown/Greene, that's a draft that doesn't win games for us next year. But those players, assuming they pan out do set us for long term greatness. So basically what you're doing next year is giving Gabbert an ideal situation to succeed on an individual level and telling him "if you want your job past this season, play us out of a pick for the top QB."

If he sucks, you draft Bridgewater next year, because we will be that bad, and then plug Bridgewater in what could by then have the components to be one of the most explosive offense in the NFL, if Gabbert plays well but the team sucks still, you draft Clowney, and if Gabbert plays well and we win enough to miss out on both, that probably tells us that we're going in the right direction.

Obviously, that's assuming next year's class looks this great when it's under the microscope, but it's interesting to think about.

Conversely, drafting a great pass rusher or QB could be enough to push us up just enough to be out of contention for the best players next year.

Not necessarly the view that I have, but it's a different perspective that could be valid at some level.

I kind of understand the sentiment you're getting at here, and there is i think, some merit to it.

But at the same time, i'm not sure a draft like Fisher/Brown/Greene really sets us up to be ballin' in the future. We'd still be missing some pretty big pieces unless someone already on our team comes out of the woodwork and has an exceptional season (Gabbert, Branch, idk?). And even still...you're missing a lot in the way of impact players.

But as far as that sentiment goes, in terms of worrying more about 'upside, potential, down the road' as opposed to 'immediate impact'...I think it's spot on.

As an example...if we were to go in on one of the riskier LEO candidates in Jordan or Mingo...i wouldn't be expecting the sort of immediate production that would singlehandedly win us extra games. You want them to look good and be reasonably effective...but either guy is likely to have some learning curve. It's hard to see that pushing us any further down the draft order next year than say Fisher as an elite RT would, allowing our offense to function more smoothly. And as far as 'immediate impact' goes in terms of worsening our draft pick...fixing our LB corps with a guy like Arthur Brown could be that subtle difference between top-2 pick and not.

Anyway, my point is...even with a 'safe' foundations type draft grabbing a RT @ #2 and maybe some solid LBs and a few other developmental guys...we go into the 2014 draft still looking for impact guys. And that's a big bill to fill.

Even if we grabbed a Bridgewater/Clowney in 2014, that alone isn't going to put this team over the top, if we don't have some other developing impact pieces already in the bag this year.

Agreed. And I didn't mean their impact alone would be enough to make us great, but rather that they're building block players to build around. They're the Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden of the 2000 Ravens, if you will. We still need the Ed Reed, the Chris McAllister, the Peter Boulware and everything else, but they're foundation pieces that when placed with a Teddy Bridgewater, a Geno Arkins type steal at another position, etc. they come together great.

And I mean, regardless of what positions we try to fill this draft, we're going to have the same number of holes next year. They'll just be different positions. If we "tank" this year, by drafting great players who by themselves don't have a great impact this year, it offers up the ability to get better talent next year.

It's not an ideal comparison, but think of how the late 90's Colts were built. They got great players like Marvin Harrison and Tarik Glenn beforehand, but they were a middling/bad franchise. Plug in Manning and then they put a couple other pieces together and they're an elite team.

Obviously it's flawed in the sense that you're banking on being able to get Bridgewater, Fales, Manziel, etc. but just another idea. There's also the idea that we turn into the Panthers, where they have a very good QB, but are missing some other impact position players and can't push it over the top.

More devil's advocate than anything though._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

Agreed. And I didn't mean their impact alone would be enough to make us great, but rather that they're building block players to build around. They're the Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden of the 2000 Ravens, if you will. We still need the Ed Reed, the Chris McAllister, the Peter Boulware and everything else, but they're foundation pieces that when placed with a Teddy Bridgewater, a Geno Arkins type steal at another position, etc. they come together great.

And I mean, regardless of what positions we try to fill this draft, we're going to have the same number of holes next year. They'll just be different positions. If we "tank" this year, by drafting great players who by themselves don't have a great impact this year, it offers up the ability to get better talent next year.

It's not an ideal comparison, but think of how the late 90's Colts were built. They got great players like Marvin Harrison and Tarik Glenn beforehand, but they were a middling/bad franchise. Plug in Manning and then they put a couple other pieces together and they're an elite team.

Obviously it's flawed in the sense that you're banking on being able to get Bridgewater, Fales, Manziel, etc. but just another idea. There's also the idea that we turn into the Panthers, where they have a very good QB, but are missing some other impact position players and can't push it over the top.

More devil's advocate than anything though.

I totally get it.

I just wonder if getting some 'immediate impact' players at 'lower impact' positions might be enough to eek out that extra win or two...vs getting a 'later impact' guy who can be 'elite eventually' but 'limited impact' as a rookie, doesn't put us further away from where we're hopefully headed (Teddy-Clowney).

It's a devils advocate thing though, and i totally get that. There's definitely some merit in that line of thinking.